Retirement plan welcomed

Monday 18th April 2011, 3:00PM BST.

Meeku Patidar

A LOCAL pensions expert has backed proposals by Social Security Minister Ian Gorst to raise the retirement age in Jersey to 67.

Meeku Patidar is the chairman of the Jersey branch of the Institute of Financial Planning and he supports Deputy Gorst’s assessment of the potential crisis facing the Social Security fund.

‘Simply, it means that for the numbers to add up we all need to work longer. This shouldn’t really come as a surprise,’ he said.

• Full report in Monday’s Jersey Evening Post

Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post.

Click here for subscription details.

Individual editions are also available online.

1
Mogit

April 18, 2011 at 5:08 pm

Well he would wouldn’t he !!!

Report abuse
2
Problem solver

April 18, 2011 at 5:57 pm

I’m sorry, Mr. Patidar, but do you honestly think that we ordinary people of this Island cannot see the most sensible solution to the problem of a lack of pension money. In the words of Mr. Meerkat – “simples”. We cease any further unnecessary immigration and concentrate on getting our current residents into worthwhile employment, so that they pay into the social security fund instead of drawing from the fund, in the form of income support or jobseekers allowance. More income and less withdrawals from the fund will enable a satisfactory pot of money to accrue over time, which will cover the pension funding in the future. We need now to be treating people as people, not machines who can be pushed and pushed until they break down – after 31 years or so of employment, everyone deserves the opportunity to enjoy a further number of years to lead an active life and have time to themselves or with their grandchildren. Raising the retirement age, when there is a feasible alternative, is not the right way to go – think how you’d feel.

Report abuse
3
Mark G

April 18, 2011 at 8:37 pm

A LOCAL pensions expert…..

So its in his interests for people to retire as he knows that we will have to pay more in to our private pension if we wish to retire earlier and cover the extra 2 years with out a State Pension which we ALL pay into.

Report abuse
4
SBSY

April 19, 2011 at 11:28 am

Shortsighted in the extreme – yes these proposals may increase the pension coffers, but the states will lose much more in paying out Job Seekers allowances, family allowances, rent rebates and all of the other allowances younger people are eligible for. The younger people will be unable to get jobs due to the fact that they are being filled by people who should have retired at 65. Also some of the older people will be home owners and they will not be eligible for rent rebates, family allowances etc. Increasing the retirement age will only make things worse – please think this through properly.

Report abuse
5
Mr E X Pert

April 19, 2011 at 7:12 pm

I quote from the article:-
“And he said (Mr Patidar)that the pension ages of 65 for a man and 60 for a woman were set a century ago”.
It is not clear from this whether he is referring to the UK or Jersey.
The first UK Pensions Act was that of 1908, which is, as stated, over a century ago. However that act gave a pension to THOSE AGED 70 AND OVER. In addition it was MEANS TESTED and there were some other conditions which excluded certain people.
If he is referring to Jersey then although there was some Workers compensation legislation in the 1930′s the pension came into being in 1951 (I make that about 60 years).
I have never been involved in the pension industry and it did not take long to find this out.

Report abuse
6
Janet Street

April 20, 2011 at 2:59 pm

Jersey IFAs are infamous for their low level qualifications. Take with a large dose of salt what they say!

Report abuse
7
Colin

April 20, 2011 at 6:47 pm

OPTIONS

1. Drop the retirement age to 50. this would give the younger generation a chance to get a job in this island.

2. Bring back the 9 month work permit for none locals as was before many other countries joined the EU.Remember Jersey people are not permitted to work in the EU!! Then local people may have a chance at finding a job.

3. Send states members on coarse so they can learn what it takes to run a small business.

4. For the states members to understand why unemployment is rising.Small employers dont want the hasle of employing time wasters.

Report abuse
8
Adrian

April 20, 2011 at 9:29 pm

No this is not welcome in the slightest, in fact it is a massive kick in the teeth to those who have a life outside of work and who have geared their retirement plans to kick in at 60 or 65. This is akin to a bank increasing your mortgage by 2 years, would anyone put up with that?

First up social security to 6% for those on big salaries, instead of as at present where very large earners pay a fraction of 1%.

I think most would prefer a higher level of contributions and an earlier finishing line to get on with the more important things in life, namely having a life outside the drudgery of work. If this is the case then up everyones’ contributions to an agreed level to cover retirement at 65 or even 60. Why not if it is possible to do so?

Indeed raise the retirement age and end up with more elderly people off sick with a variety of ailments and less youngsters in jobs at the same time, not very clever in my book.

Anyway how many employers will want to employ the elderly especially in physically demanding jobs like fire fighting and the likes?

The states just haven’t got a clue…

Report abuse
9
Sensible

April 21, 2011 at 9:10 am

7 Colin – Some good ideas, but should amend point 2 to “non UK residents” as you can get a job in the UK; so they should be able to work freely here

Report abuse